MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413325641 · doi:10.5206/cie-eci.v54i1.19302

Recruitment and Retention of International Students in Canada During the Pandemic: An Analysis of Immigration Policy Measures

2025· article· en· W4413325641 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Isaac Garcia Sitton

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative and International Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugees
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPandemicImmigration policyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EconomicsMedicineLawInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the immigration policy measures introduced in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic and analyzes how these measures supported the recruitment and retention of international students. The analysis spans from March 2020, when the pandemic was declared, to December 2022, when most educational institutions began transitioning back to in-person learning. Based on a comprehensive review of policy documents, the study finds federal measures that facilitated the recruitment and retention of international students, including travel regulations, online learning provisions, work-related measures, and pathways to permanent residency. Findings indicate a significant shift in policy-making from reactive to proactive strategies, emphasizing economic recovery as immediate health threats diminished. The pandemic necessitated rapid policy innovation, particularly in online learning and work-related provisions, which may influence future approaches to international education and immigration in Canada. The paper concludes with a discussion on the implications of these policies and recommendations for future research to understand their long-term effects on Canada's international education sector.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative and International EducationSame topicEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugeesFrench-language works237,207